I assume anyone who is a billionaire will have done something a bit shady to get where they are. I guess it's the level of shadiness and when it violates human rights that people might start to morally object to them as people.

Then there's the lunatics that own Cardiff City and Hull City. One tried to change the club's colours (and successfully did so, much to the fans dismay, until it was overturned) and the other tried to change the club's name to some Americanised bollocks. I have no feeling towards either club, but I have a great deal of sympathy for the fans who have had to fight the owners to try and stop them from vandalising the face of their clubs. When owners start treating football clubs like their personal playthings, it's quite distasteful, but in those situations, I very much dislike the owners and not the clubs.

I assume anyone who is a billionaire will have done something a bit shady to get where they are. I guess it's the level of shadiness and when it violates human rights that people might start to morally object to them as people.

Then there's the lunatics that own Cardiff City and Hull City. One tried to change the club's colours (and successfully did so, much to the fans dismay, until it was overturned) and the other tried to change the club's name to some Americanised bollocks. I have no feeling towards either club, but I have a great deal of sympathy for the fans who have had to fight the owners to try and stop them from vandalising the face of their clubs. When owners start treating football clubs like their personal playthings, it's quite distasteful, but in those situations, I very much dislike the owners and not the clubs.

Click to expand...

That is a different situation. I just don't understand why I should be bothered about an owners morals and character. Why should that worry me when it comes to the football.

City's owners are as shady as it gets and the club is half toy half desperately trying to diversify. And clubs like that have changed the face of football for the worse. That's the main reason I dislike them.

I see a lot of this but am not sure why this is the case. I have plenty of reasons to dislike clubs like City and PSG but why based on the owners?

Our own owners are a bunch of rich folk too so should we hate ourselves too then? I just don't see why who owns the club should matter.

Almost every big club out there is owned by some billionaire who no doubt will always be involved in something shady. What is the big deal here.

Click to expand...

Because their owners abuse human rights, suppress women's rights and migrant worker rights, and ban homosexuality. They are objectively deplorable.

Plus, they have pumped billions into transfers and new players/mercenaries and this gives the veneer of fast-food disposable success without the work, tears and history that other clubs have gone through. There's no fairytale. There's no organic growth. They are the McDonald's of football (although Maccas don't operate at a gross loss). The clubs are nothing more than a plaything of their owners and that's also why people do not like them.

Put it this way: I’d rather see the oil clubs win instead of United’s traditional non-sugar daddy rivals like Liverpool and Arsenal..

Click to expand...

Me too, but only because it makes it mean less. Although I wouldn't really care if Arsenal won anything. They're a fun rival on matchday but I don't feel it like I do Liverpool. I'd hate it if Pool won something but I'd at least begrudgingly respect it.

Similarly, I wanted Real to win over PSG, despite our rivalry with them.

Me too, but only because it makes it mean less. Although I wouldn't really care if Arsenal won anything. They're a fun rival on matchday but I don't feel it like I do Liverpool. I'd hate it if Pool won something but I'd at least begrudgingly respect it.

Similarly, I wanted Real to win over PSG, despite our rivalry with them.

City's owners are as shady as it gets and the club is half toy half desperately trying to diversify. And clubs like that have changed the face of football for the worse. That's the main reason I dislike them.

Click to expand...

I don’t disagree but football has attracted controversial or “colourful” owners long before Abu Dhabi group or Abramovich - Milan was rebuilt in the 80s with Berlusconi’s money, Marseille under Tapie etc. Probably we resent City more because they are our neighbours who were traditionally a joke?

Because their owners abuse human rights, suppress women's rights and migrant worker rights, and ban homosexuality. They are objectively deplorable.

Plus, they have pumped billions into transfers and new players/mercenaries and this gives the veneer of fast-food disposable success without the work, tears and history that other clubs have gone through. There's no fairytale. There's no organic growth. They are the McDonald's of football (although Maccas don't operate at a gross loss). The clubs are nothing more than a plaything of their owners and that's also why people do not like them.

Click to expand...

Agree with everything you say and anyone that even looks past those reasons needs their head testing.
It should be added that they’ve also been expanding their property into East Manchester with the blessing it seems of the Council, which also includes One of the Bernstein family. It beggars belief that the council would consider doing business with them given their anti Semitic stance

I don’t disagree but football has attracted controversial or “colourful” owners long before Abu Dhabi group or Abramovich - Milan was rebuilt in the 80s with Berlusconi’s money, Marseille under Tapie etc. Probably we resent City more because they are our neighbours who were traditionally a joke?

Click to expand...

That’s patent nonsense. I don’t resent them for that reason (money)as they are on their way to oblivion with that bunch.

Those clubs changed the transfer market forever and they absorve a lot of players, even if they will let them rot on the reserves.

It was already difficult for clubs like Lyon or Benfica (just giving a couple of examples) to assemble a decently competitive squad for CL group stage, but now it is much worst since the chances of beating multimilionare clubs are much much smaller.

I think that in the long run, it will be a very heavy finantial structure to mantain for EPL clubs. Getting relegated with the wages that are padi today is almost half-way to bankrupcy.

That is a different situation. I just don't understand why I should be bothered about an owners morals and character. Why should that worry me when it comes to the football.

Click to expand...

Because you are stroking their ego when you go to the games/watch on television. They do it to be admired, and at a second look most of them aren't admirable at all. Then there's also feckwits like D.Hopp who are so hypocritical that they are on the verge of making an art form out of it. (Hoffenheim ruined about 5 local clubs by illegially paying youngsters hundereds of euros "gas money" for every mile they had to travel there, "buying" entire youth teams from other clubs without paying those anything. And then they go on tv telling everyone how fantastic their youth setup is. This includes kids as young as 7-8. Hoffenheim is the most despicable of the lot imo, City&PSG atleast pay up when they tear up other teams and don't make any excuses about it). So yeah, hate is a strong word, but I definetly hate Dietmar Hopp and TSG Hoffenheim.

Surely it's pretty straightforward as to how an individuals ownership of a football club might lead to a difference in favourability towards that club. It's obviously heightened on here because City are big rivals, but the idea seems obvious.

City's owners are as shady as it gets and the club is half toy half desperately trying to diversify. And clubs like that have changed the face of football for the worse. That's the main reason I dislike them.

That’s patent nonsense. I don’t resent them for that reason (money)as they are on their way to oblivion with that bunch.

Click to expand...

??? They are on their way to winning the league by 20 points. And their owners are not nouveau riche clowns throwing wads of money around but serious people who have devised and implemented a plan over the last few years which is now bearing fruit. Nor are they likely to up sticks any time soon now they have done the hard yards of lifting a nothing club into one of the very best sides in Europe.

Because their owners abuse human rights, suppress women's rights and migrant worker rights, and ban homosexuality. They are objectively deplorable.

Plus, they have pumped billions into transfers and new players/mercenaries and this gives the veneer of fast-food disposable success without the work, tears and history that other clubs have gone through. There's no fairytale. There's no organic growth. They are the McDonald's of football (although Maccas don't operate at a gross loss). The clubs are nothing more than a plaything of their owners and that's also why people do not like them.

Not from what I know about them? At least explain why the Glazers are as shady.

Abramovic may be shadier but what we know still isn't as bad.

Click to expand...

I doubt The Glazers are as shady as the City lot - that takes some doing! However, they are not saints. I remember reading some stuff about Malcolm Glazer and a caravan park etc, seem to recall that the tenants weren’t exactly treated very nice.

I doubt The Glazers are as shady as the City lot - that takes some doing! However, they are not saints. I remember reading some stuff about Malcolm Glazer and a caravan park etc, seem to recall that the tenants weren’t exactly treated very nice.

Click to expand...

What's so bad about the City lot? I don't want to defend the owners because I genuinely don't know what it is everyone is talking about but... what is it? I looked at the wiki pages and am unable to find anything even controversial.

What's so bad about the City lot? I don't want to defend the owners because I genuinely don't know what it is everyone is talking about but... what is it? I looked at the wiki pages and am unable to find anything even controversial.

I doubt The Glazers are as shady as the City lot - that takes some doing! However, they are not saints. I remember reading some stuff about Malcolm Glazer and a caravan park etc, seem to recall that the tenants weren’t exactly treated very nice.

Just as I expected. This is exactly the kind of crap the media spews to get people interested/spice up some bland news. None of the links point at any exact human rights violations by Mansour himself. All articles criticize UAE and its laws (also pretty vaguely). Mansour is not the king of UAE. He doesn't even have that much power as there are several hurdles between him and the ruler. As a minister he almost has no control over stuff that happens in UAE in terms of human rights violations.

This is like blaming Glazers for human right violations in Guantanamo bay. Just a vague 2+2=5 done by the media.

Being a Sheikh, I have no doubt Mansour has some shady stuff going on but it's no more severe than glazers or anyone else for the most part. So again, how is he a shady character?

City's owners are as shady as it gets and the club is half toy half desperately trying to diversify. And clubs like that have changed the face of football for the worse. That's the main reason I dislike them.

Click to expand...

Feck. If anyone buys us I recon it'll be the Saudis. Now they're shady as feck.

Feck. If anyone buys us I recon it'll be the Saudis. Now they're shady as feck.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't know much about who it will be that buys us but this I sort of can agree with. Saudi ruling party has been shady as hell (although the new guy seems quite progressive). UAE owners are saints compared to Saudis for the most part.

Just as I expected. This is exactly the kind of crap the media spews to get people interested/spice up some bland news. None of the links point at any exact human rights violations by Mansour himself. All articles criticize UAE and its laws (also pretty vaguely). Mansour is not the king of UAE. He doesn't even have that much power as there are several hurdles between him and the ruler. As a minister he almost has no control over stuff that happens in UAE in terms of human rights violations.

This is like blaming Glazers for human right violations in Guantanamo bay. Just a vague 2+2=5 done by the media.

Being a Sheikh, I have no doubt Mansour has some shady stuff going on but it's no more severe than glazers or anyone else for the most part. So again, how is he a shady character?

Click to expand...

So you were just baiting out people to say what they're implicit in so you could say this?
Why didn't you say it in the first place?

Because their owners abuse human rights, suppress women's rights and migrant worker rights, and ban homosexuality. They are objectively deplorable.

Plus, they have pumped billions into transfers and new players/mercenaries and this gives the veneer of fast-food disposable success without the work, tears and history that other clubs have gone through. There's no fairytale. There's no organic growth. They are the McDonald's of football (although Maccas don't operate at a gross loss). The clubs are nothing more than a plaything of their owners and that's also why people do not like them.

Click to expand...

So much, so much this. I'd only like to add that another difference between the PSG City situation and the likes of the Glazers/Kroenke /average rich guy is that the latter as private individuals have a considerable, yet finite source of revenue. The sheiks are sitting on what is still the words most valuable commodity and can afford to spend and spend with no limitations. This has a distorting effect on the game.

Liverpool arsenal united are daddy owned. They're just a poorer dad then the other guy's dad

Click to expand...

Well yes, but United's "daddy" (lol Glaston) does not put any money into the club like Mansour, Abramovich et al - United are completely self sufficient. I can't speak for Liverpool and Arsenal, but it seem pretty evident that's the same case.

I don't get what you're saying. My original point is that most billionaires that own these clubs are not loveable perosnalities. Does this mean we stop watching football now?

Click to expand...

And they're not equally deplorable either. Some simply step on toes in business, which is fair game imo. Others have links to mafia. Some are partly implicit in a country's abuse of thousands. Pissing a few people off wouldn't be comparable to the latter.
No one mentioning stopping watching football.